Re: A question about IMAP

[Pawel Salek <pawsa TheoChem kth se>]

On 2001-05-08 16:47 Matthew Walton wrote:
> However, there is a major niggle in the time it takes Balsa to check
> for new messages on the IMAP server. It's at least five times longer
> than Mozilla (which is frequently barely noticeable as I'm on a LAN
> connection to the mail server) - is this normal or is it just me? As I
> was typing this Balsa took almost 50 seconds to check for new mail - I
> don't think it's the server because I use the same one for SMTP and
> that's working great.  

This is interesting. I also use balsa over IMAP and never noticed so
extreme times. The time consuming part MAY be to check the closed
mailboxe, since balsa uses for it the IMAP STATUS command, which - if
you have many mailboxes to check - can take quite some time (but I have
never experienced times longer than 10s; checking of a 80MB mailbox tree
 with 54 mailboxes takes 20s first time; the server is an averagely
loaded 450Mhz box). The connection speed is not an issue in this
respect: I have tried balsa even over 56kb dialup connection. What we
could do is to update the status of the mailbox tree incrementally, i.e.
as soon as the server returns the status.

Generally, I would need some more data about the imap server (perhaps it
is server dependent? I use UW-IMAP, which is not considered to be the
fastest on the market).

Pawel
-- 
Pawel Salek (pawsa@theochem.kth.se) http://www.theochem.kth.se/~pawsa/
Theoretical Chemistry Division, KTH voice: +46 8 790-8202